Is there need to have so many Additional AGs and Chief Standing Counsel? Allahabad High Court asks State Cabinet

The Allahabad High Court on Tuesday directed the Uttar Pradesh Chief Secretary to ask the State Cabinet on whether there was a requirement to have so many Additional Advocates General (AAG) and Chief Standing Counsel (CSC) to defend the State in court [Ishan International Educational Society Through its Director v. Mukul Singhal Principal Secretary]..Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal took note of the fact that there were 12 AAGs and 18 CSC for the High Court in total, apart from a number of Additional Chief Standing Counsel, Standing Counsel and brief holders.“The Chief Secretary shall further apprise the Cabinet as to whether there is any requirement of having so many Additional Advocate Generals and Chief Standing Counsel at Allahabad High Court and its Lucknow Bench to defend the State when there are more than 400 State lawyers already empanelled”, the order recorded..The issue arose when the Court was deciding a contempt case. After the judgment was reserved, Additional Advocate General MC Chaturvedi requested that his appearance also be recorded for the respondent-authority in addition to the State of Uttar Pradesh.The single judge remarked that it had become a routine feature for AAGs and CSCs to also hold brief for various development authorities and corporations.“Though, there is no bar for the same, but these counsel are raising bills from the State as well as the development authorities,” said the court..It was also stated by the Court that in important matters, these law officers were not appearing, and their interest was limited to appearing in matters of development authorities and corporations. Further, the judge stressed that if the AAGs and CSC had sufficient time to represent these authorities, there was no need for the State to have such large panels of lawyers. The order went on to note,“After all it is the taxpayers money which is being used in the payment of State counsel. This Court also wants to bring to the notice of the Government that there is lot of outsourcing of the lawyers on behalf of State and its various authorities and corporations and a big amount of taxpayers money is being used.”The appearance of lawyers who are not on the panel of the State shows that the empaneled lawyers don't have much competence to defend the State and its authorities, the Court said..In this regard, it was observed that in the case at hand, if two bills were raised by the same counsel it showed misconduct and the amount ought to be recovered from them as it was tax payers money which could not be misused."How a counsel can raise two bills one for representing the State as Additional Advocate General and other from the development authority i.e. Ghaziabad Development Authority.".Additionally, the court expressed its shock at a letter issued by the Special Secretary, Law Department granting two AAGs the power to receive the notices in contempt cases."This Court is stunned to read the above quoted letter, how a Special Secretary of the State can issue such order. In contempt matters the notices are issued directly by the Court to the contemnor", it was observed. Further, it was clarified that the CSC was the only state officer empowered to receive notice in civil matters, and the government advocate in criminal matters. In fact, it was stated a designated senior advocate could not receive a notice..Therefore, the issue was directed to be placed before the Cabinet, after which the Chief Secretary was asked to intimate progress in the matter to the Court’s Registrar General within two months..[Read Order]